angus shoreline management plan smp 2 - appendix a – smp 2 ... · provides a full explanation of...

Angus SMP 2 Appendix A – SMP 2 Development

Angus Council Angus Shoreline Management Plan SMP 2

Appendix A – SMP 2 Development

Lunan Bay, 2012


Contents Amendment Record

This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Revision Description Date Created by Verified by Approved by

1 0 Consultation Draft 01.01.15 S Box J Young J Young

1 1 Consultation Draft December 2015

S Box S Box J Young

2 1 Final October 2016

S Box S Box S Box

Halcrow Group Limited (A CH2M HILL Company)

Burderop Park, Swindon, Wiltshire SN4 0QD

Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089

www.ch2m.com

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, Angus Council, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

© Halcrow Group Limited 2016


The Supporting Appendices

These appendices and the accompanying documents provide all of the information required to support the Shoreline Management Plan. This is to ensure that there is clarity in the decision-making process and that the rationale behind the policies being promoted is both transparent and auditable. The appendices are:

A: SMP 2 Development This reports the history of development of the SMP 2, describing more fully the plan and policy decision-making process.

B: Stakeholder Engagement All communications from the stakeholder process are provided here, together with information arising from the consultation process.

C: Baseline Process Understanding Includes baseline process report, defence assessment, NAI and WPM assessments and summarises data used in assessments.

D: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report

This report identifies and evaluates the baseline environmental features (human, natural, historical and landscape) and presents an overview of the environmental assessment process, showing how the requirements of the EU Council Directive 2001/42/EC (the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive) are met.

E: Issues & Objectives Evaluation Provides information on the issues and objectives identified as part of the Plan development, including appraisal of their importance.

F: Policy Development and Appraisal Presents the consideration of generic policy options for each frontage, identifying possible acceptable policies, and their combination into ‘scenarios’ for testing. Also presents the appraisal of impacts upon shoreline evolution and the appraisal of objective achievement.

G: Policy Scenario Testing Presents the policy assessment and appraisal of objective achievement towards definition of the Preferred Plan (as presented in the Shoreline Management Plan document).

H: Economic Appraisal and Sensitivity Testing

Presents the economic analysis undertaken in support of the Preferred Plan.

I: Habitats Regulations Assessment Presents an assessment of the effect the plan will have on European sites.

J: Water Framework Directive Assessment

Presents the Water Framework Directive assessment of the potential hydromorphological changes and consequent ecological impact of the preferred SMP 2 policies.

K: Metadatabase and Bibliographic database

All supporting information used to develop the SMP 2 is referenced for future examination and retrieval.


Within each appendix cross-referencing highlights the documents where related appraisals are presented. The broad relationships between the appendices are illustrated below.

SMP 2 Development

(Appendix A)

Stakeholder Engagement

(Appendix B)

Baseline Processes

(Appendix C)

SEA Environmental Report

(Appendix D)

Issues & Objectives Evaluation (Appendix E)

Policy Development and Appraisal (Appendix F)

Policy Scenario Testing (Appendix G)

Economic Appraisal / Sensitivity Testing

(Appendix H)

HRA report (Appendix I)

WFD report (Appendix J)

Policy Statements (SMP 2 Document)


Table of Contents

A.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

A.2 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 2

A.2.1 SMP 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 A.2.3 Client Steering Group (CSG) ..................................................................................................................................... 2 A 2.6 Consultant .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 A.2.7 SMP 2 Study Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................... 3

A.3 SMP 2 PROGRAMME ..................................................................................................................... 5

A.4 STAGE 1: SCOPE SMP 2 .................................................................................................................. 6

A.4.1 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 6 A.4.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

A.5 STAGE 2: ASSESSMENTS TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 7

A.5.1 Baseline Process Understanding of Coastal Behaviour and Dynamics .......................................................... 7 A.5.2 Baseline Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 A.5.3 SEA Environmental Baseline Report (Theme Review) ....................................................................................... 8 A.5.4 SEA Scoping Report .................................................................................................................................................... 9 A.5.5 Definition of Issues and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 9 A.5.5 Identify Flood and Erosion Risks ........................................................................................................................... 10 A.5.6 Assessment of Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 10 A.5.7 High-Level Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 10

A.6 STAGE 3: POLICY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 11

A.6.1 Development of Policy Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 11 A.6.2 Policy Scenario Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 11 A.6.3 Supporting Assessments ......................................................................................................................................... 12 A.6.3 Identification of a Preferred Scenario ................................................................................................................. 13 A.6.4 Confirm Preferred Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 13 A.6.5 Draft SMP 2 Consultation Document Preparation ........................................................................................... 14

A.7 STAGE 4: PUBLIC EXAMINATION .................................................................................................. 15

A.7.1 Gain Approval in Principal ...................................................................................................................................... 15 A.7.2 Confirm Consultation Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 15 A.7.3 Public Consultation................................................................................................................................................... 15

A.8 STAGE 5: FINALISE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 16

A.8.1 Determine revisions to the draft SMP2 .............................................................................................................. 16 A.8.2 Finalise SMP2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 16

A.9 STAGE 6: PLAN DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................... 17

A.9.1 Dissemination and Implementation of the Final SMP2 .................................................................................. 17

A.10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 18


A-1

A.1 Introduction

This Appendix provides a full explanation of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP 2) review and development process adopted, a description of the policy decision-making process and outlines the chronology of the SMP 2 development.

As such, it provides a ‘route map’ for the supporting information used in the SMP 2 development included in the other appendices.


A-2

A.2 Project Information

A.2.1 SMP 2 Background

The Angus SMP 2 is an update of the original Angus SMP (Angus Council, 2004) covering the area from Milton Ness in the North to Broughty Castle, Broughty Ferry in the South, adopted in 2004.

This SMP 2 was developed and produced in accordance with the latest Procedural Guidance (PG) for the production of SMPs (Defra, 2006). The SMP 2 was initiated in March 2012, with this draft for consultation produced in November 2012.

Angus Council, as Lead Authority was responsible for the financial management of the project and overall project administration. Angus Council had overall responsibility for the delivery of the SMP 2 and were involved throughout the life cycle of the SMP 2. As well as initiating the development process and defining the scope and extent of the SMP 2, they were responsible for managing the development of the SMP 2 through guidance and review of the work undertaken. The council will also oversee implementation of the SMP 2.

A.2.3 Client Steering Group (CSG)

Development of this revision of the SMP 2 has been led by a Client Steering Group (CSG). The group includes representatives from Angus, Aberdeenshire and Dundee City Councils as well as the Consultation Authorities for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Historic Environment Scotland (see Table A1). The CSG were involved throughout the life cycle of the SMP 2 development. As well as providing expert knowledge and information, they were involved in a series of workshops, which included discussing and approving the preferred policies presented in this consultation draft SMP 2.

Table A1 SMP 2 Client Steering Group members

Organisation Name

Angus Council (roads) Mark Davidson

Richard Meeson

Angus Council (planning) Gordon Pyper

Angus Council (environmental management) Duncan Inglis

Dundee City Council Ross Speirs

University of Dundee Fraser Milne

Historic Environment Scotland Andrew Stevenson

Rory McDonald

SEPA Malcolm MacConnachie

Steve McFarland

SNH Shona Smith

Mark Moore

Crispin

Aberdeenshire Council Willie Murdoch

Tay Estuary Forum Laura Booth


A-3

Organisation Name

MoD Barry Buddon Tom Graham (Commandant)

Joy Fotheringham (DIO)

Scottish Water Craig Carr

A 2.6 Consultant

Halcrow Group Ltd was commissioned to produce the SMP 2 on behalf of Angus Council. The Halcrow team also worked in collaboration with the University of Dundee to produce the initial coastal processes and baseline scenario assessments (Appendix C). The Key Team members are listed in Table A2.

Table A2 SMP 2 Key Team members

Name Role

Halcrow Group Ltd

Jackie Young Project Manager

Corinna Morgan Senior Environmental Consultant

Katie Born Senior Environmental Consultant

Ailsa Collin Environmental Consultant

Sam Box Coastal Scientist / Project Manager

University of Dundee

Professor Robert Duck Technical Review

Fraser Milne Local coastal processes, management and technical review

Laura Booth Local stakeholder involvement

A.2.7 SMP 2 Study Boundaries

The alongshore boundaries of this SMP review were defined in the Angus SMP 1 (Angus Council, 2004) as Milton Ness in the North to Broughty Castle, Broughty Ferry in the South. The Angus coastline considered within this SMP lies within Coastal Cell 2 as defined by HR Wallingford in their Coastal Cells Scotland report (1997). It includes part of sub-cell 2a, from Fife Ness to Deil’s Heid and all of sub-cell 2b, from Deil’s Heid to Milton Ness. This includes part of the Aberdeenshire Council coast from the River North Esk to Milton Ness and part of the Dundee City Council coast from the Dighty Water to Broughty Castle. Whilst it is appreciated that the southern boundary at Broughty Castle is not a cell or sub-cell boundary, the Tay Estuary is an area where sediment tends to be deposited. As such, an estuary could be considered to form a suitable cell boundary. For the purposes of shoreline management, the Angus SMP 1 concluded that a boundary at Broughty Castle was acceptable, as the interchange of sediments between the Angus and the Fife coasts is unlikely to be significantly direct to require the estuary to be treated as one cell.

In terms of setting the inland boundaries, the SMP 2 review used those defined in SMP 1, identified taking into consideration land use, the natural environment, historical and archaeological features as well as considering the SMP objectives; adapted to include those areas at risk in a 0.5% AEP (coastal) flood event in year 100. Figure A1 illustrates the alongshore and inland boundaries of the Angus SMP2.


A-4

Figure A1 Overview map of the Angus Shoreline Management Plan 2 shoreline.


A-5

A.3 SMP 2 Programme

The Figure below illustrates the timetable of activities carried out as part of the SMP 2 development, highlighted in italics are the activities that involved stakeholder engagement (further details are included in Appendix B).

Stage 1: Scope SMP 2 • Undertaken by Angus Council

• Baseline Process Understanding of coastal and estuarine behaviour and dynamics developed

• Baseline Scenarios developed • Development of Issues and Objectives Tables • CSG 1 meeting to discuss Issues and Objectives Tables • Stakeholder feedback incorporated • SEA Baseline and scoping undertaken

• CSG 2 meeting to develop policy ideas • Testing of the policies defined with the CSG against processes and

objectives • Environmental Assessment of Alternative Policy Scenarios • Review of scenario testing to select Preferred Scenario • Economic analysis • Strategic Environmental Assessment of Preferred Scenario • Habitats Regulation Appraisal of Preferred Scenario • Water Framework Directive Assessment of Preferred Scenario • CSG 3 meeting to discuss and agree Preferred Policy Scenario • Develop Action Plan • Draft Consultation SMP 2 document and appendices

Stage 3: Policy Development

Stage 4: Public Examination

Stage 5: Finalise SMP

Stage 2: Assessments to Support Policy

Stage 6: SMP Dissemination

• Public Consultation • Analysis of consultation responses • Produce Consultation Report

• Finalise HRA • Finalise SMP

• Publicise SMP • Implement SMP


A-6

A.4 Stage 1: Scope SMP 2

A.4.1 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

The SMP 2 guidance recognises the need for a more efficient and focussed consultation with stakeholders invited to make representations on preferred policies, and their likely consequences. There are also specific statutory requirements for stakeholder and public engagement as part of the environment legislation. This includes the requirement to consult the Consultation Authorities during the scoping process (on the scope of the SEA Environmental Report (ER) and on the period proposed for consultation on the draft SEA) and to consult on the draft SEA ER and SMP prior to publication. As required by the SEA Directive, any responses to consultation have and will be taken into account during the preparation of the Consultation Draft and Final SMP 2. This process is intended to build trust and understanding between all parties involved in the formation of an SMP, with the aim of being inclusive, transparent and appropriate in decision-making, methods and application.

A CSG was set up by Angus Council to act as a focal point for discussion and consultation throughout development of the SMP 2. Members of the CSG were involved in a series of meetings throughout the SMP 2 development, including discussing and approving the preferred policies presented in this draft SMP 2. Appendix B provides further details of all CSG meetings.

A.4.2 Data Collection

Data was collected via a number of sources including stakeholders, literature searches and web-searches. Key resources were:

• Angus SMP 1 (Angus Council, 2004)

• Tay Estuary and Adjacent Coastal Management Plan 2009-2014 (Tay Estuary Forum, 2009)

• Montrose Beach Environmental Development Plan (Milne and Dong, 2010-2011)

• Coastal Flooding in Scotland: Scoping Study (Ball et al, 2008)

• Montrose Bay Mathematical Modelling Studies (Halcrow, 2007)

• Angus State of the Environment Report (Angus Council 2011)

All the data and information gathered and used within the SMP 2 development are referenced in Appendix K. Some of the data collected were reviewed as part of separate tasks, such as that completed for the Baseline Process Understanding of Coastal Behaviour and Dynamics (see Stage 2 below).


A-7

A.5 Stage 2: Assessments to Support Policy Development

A.5.1 Baseline Process Understanding of Coastal Behaviour and Dynamics

(a) Assessment of coastal processes and evolution

An assessment of coastal behaviour and understanding was undertaken, incorporating existing information at various temporal and spatial scales. This review includes statements on interactions, shoreline movement and predictions of shoreline evolution at various scales and is included in Appendix C.

This baseline review underpins our coastal process understanding of the study area and is the basis for the development of the baseline scenarios. Supporting technical inputs and review of this report were undertaken by the Dundee University. Through this review it was concluded that there are still inherent uncertainties associated with coastal behaviour along this coastline, which are discussed in the report.

(b) Assessment of coastal defences

The majority of information in the assessment of coastal defences was taken from SMP 1, supplemented by up to date information from Angus Council and a project team site visit with the University of Dundee. Other information had to be extracted from a variety of defence assessments and reports which have been undertaken along the SMP 2 frontage. Defence data has been reviewed by operating authorities in the CSG.

The Defence Assessment was used to inform both the baseline processes and the two baseline scenario assessments (Appendix C). The defence assessments provided information to assist in:

• Understanding of how defences and management practices may have affected coastal behaviour in the past;

• Understanding of how defences and management practices may affect coastal behaviour in the future, under various management scenarios; and,

• The ‘No Active Intervention’ assessment (see below) as a first approximation of when defences will fail.

The report on defences is included in Appendix C.

A.5.2 Baseline Scenarios

To assist in the development of future policy, the future coastal response was assessed for two simple scenarios, termed ‘baseline scenarios’: ‘No Active Intervention’ (NAI), which assumes that defences are no longer maintained and will fail over time; and ‘With Present Policies’ (WPP), which assumes a continuation of present management practices, in that all defences are maintained to provide a similar level of protection to that provided at present (i.e. an increase in flood defence heights over time to keep up with climate change). These two assessments provide an understanding of the influence of defences on coastal behaviour and evolution.

The NAI and WPP scenarios were developed in line with Defra guidance (Defra, 2006) and it is important to note that that these assessments were NOT intended to be realistic scenarios for managing the coast. They were developed as contrasting examples to form the basis of later policy appraisal and the WPP does not consider affordability or other constraints.

These assessments were completed for three pre-defined timescales (epochs): 0 to 20 years; 20 to 50 years and 50 to 100 years.


A-8

Under the two scenarios, predictions of future shoreline change and erosion/ flooding risk have been made using information from the baseline understanding of coastal behaviour and dynamics (see above) together with additional data on historical shoreline change from analysis undertaken during SMP 1.

The two baseline scenarios are included in Appendix C along with maps showing the predicted shoreline response under ‘No Active Intervention’, illustrating maximum flood and erosion risk zones along the Angus SMP 2 coast.

A.5.3 SEA Environmental Baseline Report (Theme Review)

The SEA Environmental Baseline Report (refer to Appendix D) identifies key environmental features along the coast including natural, human and socio-economic assets, and why these features are important to stakeholders: this is a central element of the identification and assessment of objectives. The report has been produced using both the most up-to-date data available, and information provided by stakeholders. Information from this review was used to understand how coastal management can affect baseline environmental features, to identify conflicts between the natural and built environment, and as a basis for developing policy options and assessing the impacts and suitability of these options.

An overview of the coastline is provided in the SEA Environmental Baseline Report, together with specific information relating to:

Natural Environment: - Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna;

- Earth Heritage, Soils and Geology;

- Air and Climate;

- Water.

Landscape Character and Visual Amenity. - Landscape and Visual Amenity

Historic Environment (Cultural Heritage): - Terrestrial;

- Marine.

Land Use, Infrastructure and Material Assets: - Commerce and Industry;

- Port and Harbour Activities;

- Agriculture;

- Infrastructure;

- Fisheries;

- Mineral Extraction and Landfill;

- Future Land Use/Planning Targets;

- Other Proposed/Ongoing Developments.

Population and Human Health: - Residential;

- Health;

- Recreation, Tourism and Amenity Interests.

Thematic maps have been produced to show the location of key features and these are included as part of Appendix D.

All environmental features and assets lying wholly, or partly, within the inland boundary of the SMP 2 were included.


A-9

The SEA Environmental Baseline Report forms part of the scoping stage of the SEA: further details on how the SMP 2 complies with SEA Directive requirements are provided in Appendix D.

A.5.4 SEA Scoping Report

A SEA Scoping Report was prepared to determine the level of detail to be included in the SEA Environmental Report, including the proposed SEA methodology, and to enable the Consultation Authorities to form a view on the scope of the Plan. The Scoping Report describes relevant environmental baseline data, proposes a framework of SEA objectives, presented our initial understanding of key environmental issues within the SMP 2 area at that time, and considered other plans and programmes of relevance. This report also scoped out issues not requiring further assessment. The SEA Scoping Report is included in Appendix D.

A.5.5 Definition of Issues and Objectives

The definition of issues and objectives (Appendix E) is a key activity of the second generation SMPs (SMP 2s) they inform the development of policy options and secondly, they help to assist in policy appraisal. The setting of objectives fulfils two roles; firstly, they help inform the development of policy options, secondly, they help provide a focus for consensus amongst the SMP 2 stakeholders on the various issues, sometimes conflicting, that are raised during the process of plan formulation.

An objective defines a target or goal that the SMP 2 aspires to in delivering the plan. It is, however, important to understand that quite commonly there are conflicting objectives for a particular stretch of coast and that therefore it is likely that not all objectives will be achieved by the SMP 2; the aim of the SMP 2 is to seek to provide a balanced plan, which considers people, nature, historic and socio-economic realities.

Using the information contained within the SEA Environmental Baseline Report (Appendix D) the issues were tabulated, subdivided into the various coastal sections. Using the SMP 2 PG (Defra, 2006) together with SEA guidelines, a list of SEA wide objectives was developed and, using the issues identified, appropriate objectives were defined for each feature.

Some features such as priority habitats, for example, were excluded from the table as a thorough appraisal of them is not possible without knowledge and specific details of project level schemes or because complete data coverage of the SMP 2 area is not available. Similarly, some assets, such as those associated with commercial fishing, are unlikely to be affected by policy decisions in coastal management, and are therefore excluded from the Issues and Objectives Table.

Within this SMP 2 we have not attempted to weight or rank objectives, as our previous experience on other SMP 2s has proven this technique to be biased towards certain policy drivers and often too subjective. Instead the focus has been on a more qualitative and flexible means of developing and appraising sustainable policy options against technical, economic, environmental and social factors. We have found this method to be more appropriate when considering intangibles and areas where a single policy may have both positive and negative impacts.

This approach has also allowed stakeholders views, provided via a number of CSG meetings and during SEA Scoping, to be considered and included within both the development of the issues and objectives table, and the subsequent policy appraisal.


A-10

A.5.5 Identify Flood and Erosion Risks

As part of the assessment of the ‘No Active Intervention’ baseline scenario, maps of potential flood and erosion risk over the three epochs were produced: these are included in Appendix C.

A.5.6 Assessment of Objectives

Following the principles of ‘Making Space for Water’, the impact on the coastal features and assets of a policy of ‘no active intervention’, throughout the coastline, has been considered. This has drawn upon both the baseline process appraisal (presented in Appendix C), and information contained within the SEA Environmental Baseline Report (see Appendix D). From this it has then been possible to determine whether objectives have been met, focusing on how and why objectives were (or were not) met, rather than numbers of objectives met.

This baseline understanding is an important input to the policy development stage and is presented in Appendix E.

A.5.7 High-Level Objectives

In addition to the objectives generated through stakeholder involvement there is a number of overarching objectives for SMP 2s that have been set by Defra, which have been considered when appraising policies:

• Shoreline management policies should take due consideration of current Government sustainable development policies, any High Level Targets, regulations, statutes, and climate change guidelines associated with flood and coastal defence;

• Shoreline management policies should seek to have no adverse effect on any physical processes that benefits rely upon;

• Shoreline management policies should take due consideration of the need to maintain, restore or where possible enhance the total stock of natural and historic assets; and

• Shoreline management policies should have regard to current regional development agency objectives and statutory planning policies.


A-11

A.6 Stage 3: Policy Development

This Stage involved four key steps:

• Development of policy scenarios;

• Policy scenario assessment;

• Identification of a preferred scenario; and

• Confirmation of the preferred scenario.

Further details on each of these steps, and results of any assessments, are included in Appendices F (Policy Development and Appraisal), G (Policy Scenario Testing) and H (Economic Appraisal and Sensitivity Testing). The sections below outline the main tasks undertaken to complete these steps.

A.6.1 Development of Policy Scenarios

Defra SMP 2 guidance (Defra, 2006) advocates a ‘policy scenario’ approach, whereby a string of policies is defined and appraised for discrete stretches of coastline; this approach ensures that the combined impact of policies is considered.

The first stage of the SMP 2 assessment was therefore to determine the main factors influencing policy decisions along the coast, i.e. key policy drivers. A key policy driver can be defined as a feature that has sufficient importance in terms of the benefits it provides that it potentially has an overriding influence upon policy selection at the wider SMP 2 scale; this may be through either promoting a policy or discarding a policy for a particular location or locations. In identifying key policy drivers, the appropriateness of all four generic Defra policies was broadly considered for each location, i.e. ‘Hold the Line’, ‘Advance the Line’, ‘Managed Realignment’ and ‘No Active Intervention’.

In order to identify draft key policy drivers, potential policy options and scenarios for appraisal, the baseline processes understanding (Appendix C), the issues and objectives tables (Appendix E), and CSG comments, were used to undertake a ‘screening procedure’ to identify potential suitable and feasible policy options to appraise for each section of coast.

For each SMP 2 frontage the key policy drivers and potential policy options to test were discussed with the CSG, from which an agreed set of policy options were determined to take forward to the policy appraisal stage (see Appendix F).

A.6.2 Policy Scenario Assessment

This process had two main stages:

• Assessment of shoreline interactions and response; and

• Assessment of achievement of objectives.

(a) Assessment of shoreline interactions and response

Each policy scenario was assessed in terms of future shoreline response. Following the same methodology as applied to the baseline scenario appraisal, statements on the impact of each policy scenario were produced, which describe the impact on coastal processes and shoreline evolution in response to the implementation of the policies. This built on the work undertaken for the baseline scenarios in Stage 2 (No Active Intervention and With Present Policies). These assessments incorporated consideration of future climate change, in


A-12

particular sea level rise. Predictions were made of both the likely rate of change and type of change along the coast.

Assumptions have been made regarding the implementation of the proposed policies: this is an important consideration as the type of implementation changes how a policy might impact on both the local environment and adjacent shorelines. For example, the downdrift consequences of a ‘hold the line’ policy may differ if this is to be implemented through provision of a linear defence (e.g. a seawall), or if it is envisaged that this will be implemented through beach stabilisation (e.g. breakwaters or groynes). This, therefore, required a broad assessment of the technical viability of the proposed policy considered.

Reports detailing these assessments are included in Appendix G.

(b) Assessment of achievement of objectives

This stage involved appraising the impact of the policies on features along the coast. The approach adopted focused on qualitatively defining the ‘benefits’ and ‘dis-benefits’, using information contained within both the SEA Environmental Baseline Report: Theme Review (Appendix D) and the Issues and Objectives Evaluation (Appendix E). At this stage we also looked to identify any opportunities that could arise from implementing the proposed policies, both for the environment and for people. All conclusions have been fully recorded in the Issues and Objectives Table. At this stage no quantification of losses was undertaken, or detailed economic analysis.

The Objective Assessment tables are included in Appendix G.

A.6.3 Supporting Assessments

(a) Strategic Environmental Assessment

An important part of the SMP process is to understand and assess how the plan will impact on the environment by considering both positive and negative effects of policies on, and relationships between, wildlife and habitats, people and their health, soil, water, air, climate, landscape and cultural heritage.

Under the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) of the European Parliament and European Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, a SEA is required for certain statutory plans. As SMP 2s are not required by legislation, SEA is also not strictly required. However, SMP 2s do set a framework for future coastal risk management and for planning decisions, and have the potential to result in significant environmental effects, and consequently an SEA has been undertaken as best practice (Appendix D).

(b) Habitats Regulation Appraisal

In some locations along the Angus SMP 2 coastline, policies would be implemented within or adjacent to international conservation sites (European sites). A Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA), Appendix I, has therefore been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and European Union Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), and their implementation in Scotland under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The HRA has also followed SNH’s guidance on HRA of Plans (2005) and the updated Planning Circular 1/2009: Development Planning 1: The Habitats Regulations (Scottish Government).

Full details of the approach used and the findings of the HRA is given in Appendix I. (c) Water Framework Directive Assessment

A Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment on the draft preferred scenario has been prepared and can be viewed in Appendix J of the SMP 2.


A-13

Ecological and water quality can be influenced by SMP 2 Policy as changes in coastal management may result in different hydrological regimes and water body morphology (see Glossary) – including such factors such as current velocities, sediment accretion/erosion, water quality (turbidity, salinity) and tidal inundation. This WFD assessment takes into consideration the potential effects of SMP 2 policy options on the ecological and water quality elements of the coastal and transitional (estuary) water bodies directly affected by the SMP 2. It also incorporates an assessment of adjacent river water bodies, which may experience some indirect effects due to SMP 2 policies (such as shifting in the upper tidal limit in rivers). The potential effects on ecological quality elements are associated with changes in hydrological regimes and water body morphology – including such factors as changes in current velocities, sediment accretion/erosion, water quality (turbidity, salinity) and tidal inundation.

The WFD assessment also considers whether the SMP 2 policies may have adverse consequences for water bodies protected under other EU legislation, in particular Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation (related to the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive, respectively). Additionally, the potential for changes in groundwater bodies are considered insofar as such changes could affect dependent ecology (i.e. groundwater dependent ecosystems).

A further consideration of possible impacts on groundwater bodies relates to their use for public (or other) water supply. Such considerations are primarily related to ’no active intervention’ and ‘managed realignment’ policies, which could result in a geographical change in the shoreline in the vicinity of a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ).

A.6.3 Identification of a Preferred Scenario

Results of the scenario testing were presented to the CSG at a meeting in October 2012. A table summarising the proposed preferred policy and justification of each policy was distributed to CSG members prior to the meeting. The proposed policies were presented and CSG members discussed the policies put forward. For two locations a choice of policies were put forward for the long term, where identification of the preferred policy required further information from and discussion with the CSG.

At this stage the main concerns noted related to the impact of policy decisions on property / land owners, rather than the technical justification of the policies.

Following discussion, a set of draft ‘preferred scenarios’ for the SMP 2 coast that best achieves the defined shoreline management objectives in a sustainable manner, considering technical, environmental and economic factors, was agreed by the CSG in principle, to put forward to public consultation.

Once the draft preferred scenario had been defined, the Management Units were finalised; these are simply frontages for which a discrete shoreline management policy applies.

A.6.4 Confirm Preferred Scenario

Once the preferred scenario had been agreed, economic analysis was carried out. Although economic considerations had been taken into account in the development of the scenarios, up to this stage no quantification had been undertaken. Appendix H includes details on the analysis undertaken.

It should be noted that this assessment was not to establish the economic justification for a scheme, simply to make a broad assessment of the economic robustness of the preferred policies, i.e. whether the policy was:

• clearly economically viable;

• clearly not economically viable; or


A-14

• of marginal viability (and therefore in need of more detailed assessment at a later date, e.g. as part of a strategic plan).

Due to lack of available data, new economic data has been derived. Losses and benefits have been calculated primarily on the basis of residential and commercial property values; these have been determined using a GIS (ESRI ArcGIS) along with Defra FCERM-AG calculation sheets, which enabled the timing of property loss to be determined using the risk zones defined as part of the policy assessment and no active intervention baseline scenario. Other assets such as utilities and highways, have been valued where possible. Intangibles such as recreation and impacts upon the local economy or environment are not quantified but are noted in a qualitative manner.

The cost of implementing the proposed policy scenarios has also been broadly calculated, assuming the implementation measures to be used. See Appendix H for further details on data used in the economic assessment.

A.6.5 Draft SMP 2 Consultation Document Preparation

A draft version of the main SMP 2 has been produced to clearly present the Plan and the associated policies for review and consultation. This includes:

• Details on the objectives of an SMP 2 and its status;

• A non-technical explanation which gives background to development of the Plan and discusses concepts of sustainability;

• An overview of the Plan and its implications for the SMP 2 coastline as a whole;

• Statements for each policy unit outlining:

o Details of the policies and their implementation;

o Justification for the policies; and

o Implications for local objectives.

o Action Plans

• Mapping to support the statements.

All supporting information is included in the accompanying Appendices as discussed within this document.


A-15

A.7 Stage 4: Public Examination

A.7.1 Gain Approval in Principal

Prior to a final version of the consultation draft SMP 2 document being produced, the Plan was presented to the CSG in October 2012. The policies and their justification were presented to the group for further discussion, following which it was agreed that the preferred policy scenario could go forward to public consultation.

A.7.2 Confirm Consultation Strategy

A strategy for the public consultation exercise was developed by Angus Council and the CSG.

The following methods of consultation were agreed by the group:

• Public leaflet/Newsletter

• Web links to the document

• Drop-in events

• Council meetings

A.7.3 Public Consultation

The public consultation report is included in Appendix B and documents how we have consulted with the public during the public consultation stage (19th April 2016 – 24th June 2016) and with the consultation authorities via the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Gateway, to inform them about the draft SMP2 and associated Environmental Report, and give them the opportunity to comment on the proposed policies.


A-16

A.8 Stage 5: Finalise Plan

A.8.1 Determine revisions to the draft SMP2 Following the public consultation period and initial review of all responses received the need for additions and or changes to the policies proposed in the consultation draft SMP2 document were considered. Proposed revisions to policies and potential impacts of these changes were discussed with Angus Council in detail and agreed by the CSG via email. All changes proposed are documented in the Consultation Report, as an Annex to Appendix B.

Alterations and additions to the main SMP2 document and supporting appendices were made, where necessary, in response to comments received and to finalise the document.

A.8.2 Finalise SMP2 Following consideration of comments raised during public consultation the SMP2 has been finalised. The Final SMP2 will be adopted by the coastal Local Authorities within the SMP2 boundaries.


A-17

A.9 Stage 6: Plan Dissemination

A.9.1 Dissemination and Implementation of the Final SMP2

Angus Council will be responsible for making the SMP2 accessible, for publicising its completion and monitoring progress of the Action Plan. The SMP2 will be published on the Angus Council web pages.

It is considered likely that the next review of the SMP will take place within a 5 – 10 year period.


A-18

A.10 References

Angus Council (2004) Angus Shoreline Management Plan. Angus Council, Forfar.

Angus Council (2011) Angus State of the Environment Report. Angus Council, Forfar.

Ball, T., Werritty, A., Duck, R.W., Edwards, A., Booth, L. and Black, A.R. (2008) Coastal Flooding in Scotland: A Scoping Study. Project FRM10. Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Edinburgh.

Defra (2006) Shoreline Management Plan Guidance. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

Milne, F.D. and Dong, P. (2010) The Morphodynamics of Montrose Bay and Implications for Coastal Management. Montrose Beach Environmental Development Plan Phase 1 Report. Angus Council, Forfar.

Milne, F.D. and Dong, P. (2011) Management of Erosion at Montrose. Montrose Beach Environmental Development Plan Phase 1 Report. Angus Council, Forfar.

Halcrow (2007) Montrose Bay Mathematical Modelling Studies. Halcrow Group Limited, Swindon.

HR Wallingford (1997). Coastal Cells in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring. Series No. 56.

Tay Estuary Forum (2009) Tay Estuary and Adjacent Coastal Management Plan 2009-2014

angus shoreline management plan smp 2 - appendix a – smp 2 ... · provides a full explanation of...

Documents